Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Of course I can differentiate or I wouldn't have asked, but it's not productive to watch/listen for an hour to net 10 minutes of news.
But I suspect you're right with most people 'don't want unbiased news' - or we wouldn't be bombarded with same. That's sad commentary on Americans "who want nothing more than to reinforce what they already believe."
PBS, NPR, big-city dailies, BBC/Reuters, and ABC/CBS/NBC.
If you want pure objectivity, try C-Span.
I kinda miss Al-Jazeera America. They did some balanced, measured reporting. No shouting.
Quote:
Originally Posted by skins_fan82
This is fairly accurate
I agree, and I also agree with another poster that CNN's problem - as well as Fox's cable news, MSNBC, and the lot of the cable news crew - is sensationalism. Watching three or four people shout at each other is not entertaining, let alone interesting or informative.
Of course I can differentiate or I wouldn't have asked, but it's not productive to watch/listen for an hour to net 10 minutes of news.
But I suspect you're right with most people 'don't want unbiased news' - or we wouldn't be bombarded with same. That's sad commentary on Americans "who want nothing more than to reinforce what they already believe."
We get what we deserve...
Of course. Americans haven't wanted unbiased news in fifty years. When Cronkite told the truth about Vietnam, lots of people were incensed. It's gone downhill from there.
Americans love yaking ad infinitum about wanting unbiased news. They're lying. They want boutique programming that reinforces what they already believe. We all know it.
Why else would millions of dopes listen to a three or four hour talk radio show featuring some blowhard that's telling you stuff that doesn't challenge your preconceived notions whatsoever?
I agree, and I also agree with another poster that CNN's problem - as well as Fox's cable news, MSNBC, and the lot of the cable news crew - is sensationalism. Watching three or four people shout at each other is not entertaining, let alone interesting or informative.
People shouting and talking over each other is not by design of the program host. It's not the network or the host at fault, it's the people who have no manners. I've seen some hosts just cut these people off when they can't/won't be stopped. Sometimes opposite views are strong and volatile and, instead of allowing both views to be heard, one individual talks over everyone else, non-stop, as if that gives their position greater validity.
That's downright rude and, I agree, it isn't interesting or informative.
No matter where you go for news, have a very jaundiced-eye and be skeptical. There is a lot of "news" that is non-political, and many times those stories are loaded with BS........health-news comes to mind.
It's not hard to read between the lines. I read liberal sources and stop after a paragraph and think to myself "is this really worthy of outrage?" Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't.
Reuters TV is actually quite good and I like the format. Other than that, just random online sources like reddit, this board, and my Google news feed (requires lots of filtering out MSM garbage though).
Look at the make up of their panels. 4 former Clinton and Obama operatives sit on one side. Kelly McInerney, a Trump-hating establishment Republican and a "mainstream conservative" journalist, like Matt Lewis, sit on the other. Kelly has to answer to her own right flank more than the other half of the panel. Anderson Cooper, "the moderator", can't wait to join the rest and gang up on Kelly.
Some are certainly better than others, but knowing no news is totally objective, I've always made it a point to watch liberal and conservative media, along with major networks. But it's reached the point that CNN, Fox News, MSNBC anchors and guests are so dominated with hyperbole and predictable partisanship that I can't watch them - for now at least. There's nothing to learn there! They just pander to folks who want nothing more than to reinforce what they already believe.
ABC, NBC & CBS are more neutral, but not totally, and they don't offer news 24/7 - thank goodness. Turns out 24/7 news was/is a bad idea IMO.
Needless to say I don't watch or listen to any of the many obviously opinion or biased sources and their blissfully ignorant audiences (both sides). Also in existence only to pander to folks who want nothing more than to reinforce what they already believe.
So my news MO now is tune out Trump where possible (even though I'm a lifelong center right conservative), focus more on what actually happens instead of hollow words, and watch sources that try to remain neutral or openly provide both sides views.
PBS Evening News tries to be neutral, though PBS often goes (way) left in some other programming.
The Charlie Rose show seems to offer both sides views on political issues, usually without dwelling on the hyperbole or Trump shooting himself in the foot every other day.
Are there other balanced or neutral sources with reasoned, thoughtful reporting in these days of proliferating fake news?
Fox & Drudge are the sources I rely on. I read CNN to see what Fake News is in play. I read The Daily Mail for entertainment.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
